-In some cases, human beings have evolved in such fashion as to think that they are doing X for prosocial reason Y, but when human beings actually do X, other adaptations execute to promote self-benefiting consequence.
No, again you’re not following the precise lines. An adaptation doesn’t necessarily benefit one’s ‘self’: it’s supposed to help one’s genes or one’s genes in another person (or even just a gene at the expense of all the others). Kin selection, right? Fisher’s famous “I would not sacrifice myself to save a brother, but would for 2 brothers, 4 cousins...′
So again, this corrupted hardware business is not identical with selfishness or self-interest, however you seem to be using either.
So you are saying the hardware of genes that has fueled the movement of life, and must embryologically exist within the human structure, is a hinderance to the structure of the social animal?
Genes give rise to the sociality in the first place; this is one of the paradoxes of trying to fight one’s genes, as it were. It’s hairy meta-ethics: where do your desires and morals come from and what justifies them?
I don’t think morality should be segregated from desire. I realize that Freud’s concept of drives is at this point in time obsolete, but if there were “drives” it would not be a sex, aggression, or hunger drive that dominated the human animal, but a belonging drive. In my opinion it does not matter where the hardware comes from, what is important is an intimacy with its function. I think for too long there has been a false dichotomy constructed between morals and desires.
as to the question of meta-ethics, I would apply the works of E. O Wilson or Joseph Tainter to the construction of a more humane humanity.
No, again you’re not following the precise lines. An adaptation doesn’t necessarily benefit one’s ‘self’: it’s supposed to help one’s genes or one’s genes in another person (or even just a gene at the expense of all the others). Kin selection, right? Fisher’s famous “I would not sacrifice myself to save a brother, but would for 2 brothers, 4 cousins...′
So again, this corrupted hardware business is not identical with selfishness or self-interest, however you seem to be using either.
So you are saying the hardware of genes that has fueled the movement of life, and must embryologically exist within the human structure, is a hinderance to the structure of the social animal?
Genes give rise to the sociality in the first place; this is one of the paradoxes of trying to fight one’s genes, as it were. It’s hairy meta-ethics: where do your desires and morals come from and what justifies them?
I don’t think morality should be segregated from desire. I realize that Freud’s concept of drives is at this point in time obsolete, but if there were “drives” it would not be a sex, aggression, or hunger drive that dominated the human animal, but a belonging drive. In my opinion it does not matter where the hardware comes from, what is important is an intimacy with its function. I think for too long there has been a false dichotomy constructed between morals and desires.
as to the question of meta-ethics, I would apply the works of E. O Wilson or Joseph Tainter to the construction of a more humane humanity.